I am very sorry that I feel I have no choice but to withdraw my contribution to the Feminism in London conference this year. It is particularly difficult for me to do so because FiL is one of the few feminist conferences that dare include me on their programme (in case of disruption from anti-feminists claiming I am transphobic, biphobic, Islamophobic and whorephobic). In fact, FiL had, in previous years, left me off the programme (but had me speak) in case the smooth-running of the conference suffered as a result. This year I told the organisers that I would only agree to speak at the event if my name were included in the programme, to which they agreed. It therefore feels particularly upsetting to find that the organisers are once again being bullied about one of their speakers, Jane Fae, this time on the grounds that she has expressed and still holds some pro-pornography views.

I am very clear in my stance about the sex trade. I am an active and passionate member of the feminist abolitionist movement, and would never invite someone with Jane Fae’s views to speak on the topic at any event I were to organise, and would not debate whether or not the sex trade harms women and girls. But Jane was not invited to speak on any aspect of this topic.

I have shared panels with other feminist abolitionists that have differing views to me on a range of feminist issues, and regularly attend events at which there may be delegates or speakers who would take opposing views on important issues such as reproductive rights and sexual identity. But I would hope we all share core values, and can work together on single issues, such as ending men’s violence towards women.

If we were to scrutinise each others’ political standpoints on everything prior to deciding whether a speaking invite should be proffered, I would imagine our movement would be somewhat smaller than it already is.

I cannot possibly reconcile my position on the no-platforming of feminists for holding contrary views on topics they are not even planning on speaking about, and stand aside whilst Jane Fae is handed out similar treatment.

Last week we received a visiting speaker request form for Julie Bindel to be invited to speak at a society event.

As per our external speaker processes, it was flagged as potentially in breach of our safe space policy.

After reviewing the request in more detail, the Students’ Union has decided to deny this request based on Bindel’s views and comments towards trans people, which we believe could incite hatred towards and exclusion of our trans students.

5 Responses to “Fairness? What’s that?”

A few years ago, when I was marginally involved in town planning, a catch phrase about traffic management began to take hold as progressive planners tried to overturn decades of wrong thinking about cities and cars: ‘more risk, less danger’. It’s a phrase that our universities would do well to adopt.

For the record: I’m against no-platforming in both cases (Bindel and Fae).

There are some details which make it a bit difficult. From Bindel’s statement:

I am an active and passionate member of the feminist abolitionist movement, and would never invite someone with Jane Fae’s views to speak on the topic at any event I were to organise, and would not debate whether or not the sex trade harms women and girls. But Jane was not invited to speak on any aspect of this topic.

Also:

I stand firmly in support of those women who wish to organise and attend women only events at which there is a consensus on issues around the sex trade and other key feminist issues, and I would certainly never take part in one where apologists for the sex trade would be invited to air their views. But I cannot take part in an event in which a speaker has had to withdraw because of views unrelated to the topic on which she was invited to speak.

The Student Union banned Julie Bindel “from speaking in a panel discussion on feminism and censorship”. Now, here is the question: are her views on trans issues unrelated to the topic of feminism and censorship? Is there really no connection, no aspect in common?

Don’t expect any answers from me, apart from: I find all of this extremely slippery. It’s certainly easy to imagine quarrels about trans issues emerging naturally from a discussion on feminism and censorship. But is it enough to declare it “an aspect of the topic”? Perhaps not. Still, it could easily happen… and moreover, discussions of this (broadly conceived) type are exactly what Bindel herself “never would take part in”, nor would she be ready to give platform to them.

All in all, it looks to me like a risky and a slippery path to take. Nevertheless, it looks also like a step in the right direction. After all, it would be naive to expect miracles. In the present climate, one should be probably grateful if people of opposing views will gracefully agree just to breath the same air for a couple of hours! In view of this, Bindel’s withdrawing in support of Fae is, in fact, an admirable move beyond all expectations.

I recommend that readers read the safe space policy and consider its full implications.

I don’t have time to go through it all now but if taken at face value it is against the rules argue for rapists and paedophiles to be prosecuted because then you would be promoting punishment based on sexual activity. Furthermore if you were talking about the Catholic Church shielding such people this would also be banned as learning this would be likely to incite feeling of hatred towards the individuals concerned and the Catholic Church generally.